‘Oink, oink.’ Lieutenant general belittled staff, mocked female airman’s weight, IG found. It cost h

[rangerrebew]

‘Oink, oink.’ Lieutenant general belittled staff, mocked female airman’s weight, IG found. It cost him a star.
By: Stephen Losey  

According to some who worked for him, there were two sides to former Lt. Gen. Lee Levy.

In public, the former head of the Air Force Sustainment Center was “self-confident, articulate, charismatic, passionate, likeable [and] charming,” witnesses told investigators from the Air Force’s Office of the Inspector General. But some who worked for him saw a very different leader — one who “repeatedly, publicly and personally belittled and berated” his staff, was “abrasive” and created an environment “infused with fear and intimidation.”

Subordinates were “walking on eggshells” to avoid upsetting him, according to a March 2019 IG report.

A comment by one unnamed witness reveals just how reviled Levy — and the toxic command climate he created — was by some: “I think if he was in the battlefield, he probably would’ve been shot in the back,” the witness said.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/11/26/oink-oink-lieutenant-general-belittled-staff-mocked-female-airmans-weight-ig-found-it-cost-him-a-star/

[dfwgator]

General Patton wouldn't stand a chance today.

[Smokin Joe]

General Patton wouldn't stand a chance today.

No, he wouldn't. In fact, he ran afoul of the press even then, in the middle of the war.

Which begs the question, Are our most competent war fighters being sacked or degraded because of the social experiment going on in the services? The purpose of a military is to be so competent at applying force that no one wants to even tangle with them (a deterrent, and if that doesn't work, kick their ass).  This isn't kindergarten story time, it isn't there to be warm and fuzzy.
That said, I have had a belly full of two faced sh*tbirds in my lifetime, and no system which fosters nor tolerates that should be continued. Patton was who he was, unapologetically direct, and notably competent, to the degree it vexed the politicians in the command structure.

[mountaineer]

But some who worked for him saw a very different leader — one who “repeatedly, publicly and personally belittled and berated” his staff, was “abrasive” and created an environment “infused with fear and intimidation.”

Do we really want generals who act more like Fred Rogers than George S. Patton? Waaah, he bullied me!

[sneakypete]

“I attempted to be tough but fair in my leadership style as we strove for excellence in everything we did,” Levy said.

“I attempted to be tough but fair in my leadership style as we strove for excellence in everything we did,” Levy said.

And there is the root of it. He was just a clerk and wanted the image of being a General Patton. General Officers in charge of supply units need to be EFFICIENT,not "tough". Their job is to keep the supply flow moving to make sure equipment,food,spare parts,etc,etc,etc,gets to where it needs to be,NOT to be "tough".

If he wanted to be tough,he should have gone into the USMC or the US Army as a combat arms branch officer.

Not every officer or NCO in the military needs to be "tough". In FACT,it usually gets in the way of being an effective NCO or Officer because the people under you end up having contempt for you instead of admiration.

This is especially true because the definition of "being tough" is FAR different in combat arms units than in support units. In combat arms units,it has nothing to do with being feared by those under your command. It has to do with being determined to do your duty to the best of your ability and not backing off due to fear of either the enemy or your own commander. It also means you will stand up for the people under your command when they are right,even if the people that outrank you are coming after them. It means not being afraid to show consideration for the people under your command because you are an adult and you understand their welfare is a part of your responsibility.

I served 6 years in the United States Army Special Forces,and met my first General officer when I was a newly assigned E-2 at the Special Warfare center and temporarily assigned as a "role player" at the Gabriel Demonstration Area at Ft. Bragg. It was General Yarborough,the commanding general of the Special Warfare Center,and he made it a point to walk up to me and the other young guys,smile,and shake our hands and ask us what our impressions were of the presentation. Come to think of it,he was the ONLY General Officer I met who was already a General,and he went out of his way to be welcoming and pleasant when he didn't have to and there was absolutely nothing for him to gain by doing so.

To continue,in my entire 6 years or so of serving in various Special Forces groups and detachments,I honestly don't think I heard the words "That is a direct order!" twice,and am not even sure I ever heard them. True leaders don't have to give orders.

It is a sign of leadership,which is a trait this particular General Officer was completely lacking. I have to wonder how he ever got 3 stars unless his father was a General Officer,or had political connections. People don't become like that overnight. He was always like that to the people under him command everywhere he served.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And there is the root of it. He was just a clerk and wanted the image of being a General Patton. General Officers in charge of supply units need to be EFFICIENT,not "tough". Their job is to keep the supply flow moving to make sure equipment,food,spare parts,etc,etc,etc,gets to where it needs to be,NOT to be "tough".

If he wanted to be tough,he should have gone into the USMC or the US Army as a combat arms branch officer.

Not every officer or NCO in the military needs to be "tough". In FACT,it usually gets in the way of being an effective NCO or Officer because the people under you end up having contempt for you instead of admiration.

This is especially true because the definition of "being tough" is FAR different in combat arms units than in support units. In combat arms units,it has nothing to do with being feared by those under your command. It has to do with being determined to do your duty to the best of your ability and not backing off due to fear of either the enemy or your own commander. It also means you will stand up for the people under your command when they are right,even if the people that outrank you are coming after them. It means not being afraid to show consideration for the people under your command because you are an adult and you understand their welfare is a part of your responsibility.

I served 6 years in the United States Army Special Forces,and met my first General officer when I was a newly assigned E-2 at the Special Warfare center and temporarily assigned as a "role player" at the Gabriel Demonstration Area at Ft. Bragg. It was General Yarborough,the commanding general of the Special Warfare Center,and he made it a point to walk up to me and the other young guys,smile,and shake our hands and ask us what our impressions were of the presentation. Come to think of it,he was the ONLY General Officer I met who was already a General,and he went out of his way to be welcoming and pleasant when he didn't have to and there was absolutely nothing for him to gain by doing so.

To continue,in my entire 6 years or so of serving in various Special Forces groups and detachments,I honestly don't think I heard the words "That is a direct order!" twice,and am not even sure I ever heard them. True leaders don't have to give orders.

It is a sign of leadership,which is a trait this particular General Officer was completely lacking. I have to wonder how he ever got 3 stars unless his father was a General Officer,or had political connections. People don't become like that overnight. He was always like that to the people under him command everywhere he served.

As I read this article, I started to get the image that the people complaining about him were mostly women who thought he was "mean".  According to the article, his "most egregious" action was making fun of a female airman's eating habits and her weight.

Boo-hoo.  I heard the term "fatbody" probably 100 times said to various people who were...fatbodies.  It's the military, not a freaking grade school, and if you don't like the comments people make about your weight, then try losing some.

Getting rid of a general who is otherwise highly effective because he was "mean" is bogus.

[sneakypete]

As I read this article, I started to get the image that the people complaining about him were mostly women who thought he was "mean".  According to the article, his "most egregious" action was making fun of a female airman's eating habits and her weight.

Boo-hoo.  I heard the term "fatbody" probably 100 times said to various people who were...fatbodies.  It's the military, not a freaking grade school, and if you don't like the comments people make about your weight, then try losing some.

Getting rid of a general who is otherwise highly effective because he was "mean" is bogus.

@Maj. Bill Martin

He was a 3 star that spent his entire career in support units,and he didn't know you can't insult the people in your command and get away with it in this day and age?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

He was a 3 star that spent his entire career in support units,and he didn't know you can't insult the people in your command and get away with it in this day and age?

"Insulting people in your command" may be cause to hit terminal rank, or be retired.  Knocking a star off because some fat airman's feelings were hurt is PC b.s.

[truth_seeker]

A smaller and smaller fraction of our society serves in the military, while a bigger and bigger fraction spend lifetimes in social justice warrior positions (school teacher, HR departmennt, etc.)

[Wingnut]

The participation trophy bleep army. 

[sneakypete]

"Insulting people in your command" may be cause to hit terminal rank, or be retired.  Knocking a star off because some fat airman's feelings were hurt is PC b.s.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Bleep him AND the horse he rode in on. Belittling and humiliating the people under your command is NOT a sign of good leadership OR professionalism. I expect more of General Officers than I do 17 year old PFC's.

[mountaineer]

Belittling and humiliating the people under your command is NOT a sign of good leadership OR professionalism.

I agree, and believe the same is true of athletic coaches who scream curses to children on the practice field. On the other hand, if an overweight soldier can't endure being told he or she is overweight, we're in trouble.

[sneakypete]

I agree, and believe the same is true of athletic coaches who scream curses to children on the practice field. On the other hand, if an overweight soldier can't endure being told he or she is overweight, we're in trouble.

@mountaineer

I agree,but it is NOT the place of the unit commander to do this,and to do it in public with others listening in. It is the job of the until physician,and/or the platoon leader. Even then it's not something you do in public.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I agree, and believe the same is true of athletic coaches who scream curses to children on the practice field. On the other hand, if an overweight soldier can't endure being told he or she is overweight, we're in trouble.

@mountaineer

I agree,but it is NOT the place of the unit commander to do this,and to do it in public with others listening in. It is the job of the until physician,and/or the platoon leader. Even then it's not something you do in public.

@mountaineer @sneakypete

I agree with both of your points, and I'd agree it is unseemly for a general officer -- as opposed to a noncom -- to say something like that.

What I'm objecting to is the effective criminalization of "mean" leadership.   Making that his terminal rank, and perhaps even relieving him of command in egregious cases may be appropriate, but busting him in rank is a UCMJ action, and that's b.s..  These kind of actions effectively give junior subordinates (I suspect especially females) an unreasonable amount of power over their seniors, and that's a very bad thing for the military.  "My CO/CG/Platoon Sgt. was mean to me", which is what this boils down to, is not something that should result in reduction in rank.

We're going to end up with the inmates running the asylum, and that's never a good thing.

[sneakypete]

@mountaineer @sneakypete

 

What I'm objecting to is the effective criminalization of "mean" leadership.   Making that his terminal rank, and perhaps even relieving him of command in egregious cases may be appropriate, but busting him in rank is a UCMJ action, and that's b.s..  These kind of actions effectively give junior subordinates (I suspect especially females) an unreasonable amount of power over their seniors, and that's a very bad thing for the military.  "My CO/CG/Platoon Sgt. was mean to me", which is what this boils down to, is not something that should result in reduction in rank.

We're going to end up with the inmates running the asylum, and that's never a good thing.

@Maj. Bill Martin

I'm with ya 100 percent on that one!

Seemed to me during my short exposures that the senior officers in a support units were so busy sticking knives in each other's backs they didn't have time to deal with the enlisted swine to start with,and left discipline to the senior NCO's. Which too often wasn't much better or different.

[rangerrebew]

Trying to use civilian codes of conduct in the military is a prescription for failure.  I'm not suggesting that senior ranks need to act like Attila the Hun.  But there are times when they must order subordinates to do things which would be illegal in the civilian world but necessary for the larger good and people cannot be allowed to object citing Constitutional law.  Military people are covered by the UCMJ and there is no justice - at times.